Le dimanche 05 juin 2005 à 19:00 +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar a écrit : > If you're going to complain about a cabal, please do try to get the > facts straight: The DPL team consists of only one Canonical employee, > who was even later, after the election, added (Benjamin "Mako" Hill), > and in Vancouver, again there was only one[1] single Canonical employee > present (James Troup). All the others involved with either of those two > groups are not involved in Canonical at all, and only one or two are > marginally involved in Ubuntu.
Then how did these people end up choosing to support the same set of architectures as Ubuntu? I know this has been discussed to death, but I still fail to see which problems in Debian the Vancouver proposal can actually solve. > All the teams that are occasionally accused of cabalistic > characteristics are composed of a diverse group of DD's, and I dare say > that they are composed of a group of DD's that simply have shown genuine > interest and constructive contributions to the team's goal at hand. In > other words, those teams consist of those doing the work. I'll be the > first to admit that indeed the admittance to such teams might be a bit > obscure to those not following closely what's happening, but if > someone's genuinly interested in contributing to any particular task, > there's always a lot to do also for relatively outsiders, and that's the > way you can show competence and make a step towards joining. If you want to contribute to GNOME packaging, you know what to do: contribute enough patches and uploads, and you'll end up having a subversion access very quickly. This is the case for most maintenance teams in the project, and I doubt you can say they have cabalistic characteristics. Now, please tell me what I can do so that all architectures in sarge are supported in etch. Or what I could have done so that amd64 was included in sarge. These decisions were taken by closed groups, without any care for their actual technical merits, and against the will of most developers. And there's nothing I can do to contribute to these decisions. > As always, constructive idea's and posts about issues in Debian not > running as smoothly as they maybe could are always appreciated, but just > complaining about being doomed with Canonical ruling Debian, or > something like that, is not constructive at all, rather, it'll only hurt > cooperation. And isn't cooperation one of the founding reasons for the > Open Source movement, that one can share idea's and code, in order to > all together make the greatest software about? As long as the cooperation is about making Debian the best operating system ever, I'm fine with that. But given the behavior of some people occupying key positions in the project, I'm wondering if that's really what they're aiming for. Let's just say that, in its current state, the Debian project still fails the "tentacle of evil" test. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette /\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
